Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer

I would consider beating someones head against the concrete as deadly force. Florida statute states that if you feel your life is in danger you may use any force necessary to repel that attack. From Zimmerman’s statement Martin had also threatened Zimmerman’s life verbally. Zimmerman also stated that he believed Martin was trying to get his gun after stating that he was going to kill him. Going by the statements then George fired into Martin justifiably. He stated that he didn’t even think he hit Martin.

If George had continued to fire this case would have different consequences for Zimmerman but he used only enough force to stop the attack on him. I can imagine this all happened very quickly. If Zimmerman had pulled his gun before he was attacked it is possible that he would have been justifiably charged because it would have shown intent however if he had done so Martin may have thought twice about attacking Zimmerman. It was such a wide open area and Zimmerman lost sight of Martin it is too bad that Martin didn’t just go home instead of coming back to attack Zimmerman.

Martin may have been hiding on someone’s porch or in the bushes when Zimmerman originally walked by or maybe he went all the way around the complex and doubled back. Considering Zimmerman was already past the ally when Martin called out to Zimmerman it makes me think Martin was looking for trouble at that point.

Zimmerman will be seeing a judge today to determine if they will take of the ankle bracelet GPS I should hear about it on the news later today.

reply to post by DJW001

In your opinion, was Trevor Martin using deadly force?

In my opinion, assuming it is true that Zimmerman has suffered a broken nose, then yes. A force sufficient to break a bone is deadly force (able to cause serious bodily harm or death), especially when inflicted on the head.

Also, deadly force or not, someone breaking my nose is very likely going to get shot if I am armed. I feel any reasonable person including the jury will have a similar opinion, and the case will be decided by a jury, not a legal dictionary.

Gawd this is truly pathetic...basically anyone putting hands on another is deserving of a gunshot..I mean how cowardly have guns made Americans.

I really do not know how anyone can look at themselves and consider themselves men...if you can handle yourself in a fight then please for god sake...stay away from manly events. These type of events attract men who love a good scrap every now and then. If getting a bruise is considered a life and death situation, then stay over there with your guns and let the real men play..

Zimmerman is guilty no doubt but in the end it is the courts who will have a say. Let us hope they get it rights and throw his cowardly ass in jail...tell you one thing..he will no longer be a virgin..and won't have his gun to protect his girly ass...

Bunch of girly men live in America..but come north for some good times..but beware you may get yourself into a fight..which we consider part of the fun..

Talking with the officer next to me at work...there are some very important things hinging on these SYG cases.

Basically, it will give these scary people out here the license to just start shooting people. They just may ge what they want, but they will not be the only ones with guns.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Ad hominem attacks just show you have nothing worth saying. You can’t make a logical post stating why you think George is guilty because the evidence points to his innocence so you revert to insults which shows just how weak your debating skills are. No one cares how tough you think you are but just keep in mind that if you come to Florida and attack a man to try and show how tough you think you are he just may be a lawfully gun carrying citizen that will take your life to defend his and regardless of how strong you think you are when you are dead at best we may have debate on here about the subject. At that point the debate will probably be about how dumb it was for you to attack someone with a gun.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I am not attacking anyone in particular, I am just stating the facts that most cowardly people in this thread feel it is OK to shoot someone for roughing them up a bit. The women I understand, but C'mon...really...the men also...that is just pathetic.

I have stopped arguing for Martin because in the end it doesn't matter because I am not going to be part of the trial.

I would never attempt to start something with an American male on American soil....but come over here...try that American bravado crap here...well be glad we have free health care.

I never said anything about being tough...sure I can handle myself but against the cowardly fella with a weapon...not too sure. I have had a gun pointed at me on the streets in Toronto ( the wanna be American city)...never backed down and never gave my money up...stupid yes..but I felt I would have died with dignity. In the end he showed his true self a coward with a weapon.

Either way ...control your damn guns...they are getting into our country.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Stay inside...it's a mans world out there....the less of you cowards..the better. Would be no need for guns to protect the girly men of the world...and the women would not feel the need to have a weapon..because of their girly men....

I never lost..nor have you won...in this thread...the trial will decide that. Even then...we will both still think we are right.

reply to post by kerazeesicko


I am not from US nor do I even own a gun, but I dont see any cowardice in shooting an attacker. If you are stupid enough to assault someone, then its just natural selection I say. Real men are interested in ending the threat, not getting into fights. Your posts sound like pathetic chest thumping..

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Propulsion

 

It sounds like you’re quite knowledgeable in the business of retrieving unbiased information from other places that don’t involve the internet. If you could please direct me, it would be greatly appreciated!

It's called "critical thinking." Try it some time; it can change your life.

What does "critical thinking" have to do with people wanting to start riots???

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

I am not from US nor do I even own a gun, but I dont see any cowardice in shooting an attacker. If you are stupid enough to assault someone, then its just natural selection I say. Real men are interested in ending the threat, not getting into fights. Your posts sound like pathetic chest thumping..

A man, unless he's old or crippled, should be able to handle himself against one other person with out a gun. It's pure cowardice that in a 1 on 1, a man has to shoot another when that other hasn't brandished a weapon.

It is what it is...Yes a man should be able to thump his chest when the time arises. Sorry this world has become so girly that MEN can't fight anymore.

reply to post by DJW001

I repeat: There are reasons why the legal system uses the expression "not guilty" rather than "innocent:"

Repeating nonsense only proves one's ignorance. You have done that quite often!

Your excerpt does not show "reasons". It only shows definitions! One of the definitions from that excert is:

c : free from legal guilt or fault

Because of your obvious inability to comprehend that simple little phrase, I must ask:
Did you, successfully, complete the fourth grade?

Why are some people so keen to spread the "George Zimmerman is innocent" meme? It's not as though Zimmerman didn't actually kill someone.

I reckon that's because of the LEGAL presumption of INNOCENCE, until one's guilt has been demonstrated, in a criminal court of law, beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that, that concept is far from your "intellectual" grasp.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DJW001

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Maslo

 

So by your own source, walking up to someone and saying "hey, punk" is not an assault. Frankly, I dont understand how someone can consider that an assault, please enlighten me. Do you think you can punch someone that calls you a punk, or what?

Read carefully, please:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Following someone around in a car can create apprehension. Getting out of that car and approaching someone can create the impression of "an imminent harmful or offensive contact." It is an overt action, especially if coupled with a threatening greeting like "Hey! Punk!" George Zimmerman is guilty of assault.

Of course you can't just punch someone who calls you a punk. That would be battery. Trevor Martin might be guilty of battery.

Here's the thing you need to wrap your head around. It is possible to be guilty of committing a crime innocently. Zimmerman may have thought he was doing the neighborhood a favor by assaulting Martin. He did it in all innocence. Nevertheless, he was guilty of assault. Martin may have thought that he was in danger of being physically attacked, and defended himself in all innocence by taking a swing at Zimmerman. Nevertheless, if that was the case, he would still be guilty of battery.

Now: why is it so important to you that Zimmerman be called "innocent?" Even he admits to killing Martin.

George Zimmerman has not been charged with assault, so your entire argument is nothing more than a "straw man". Furthermore, I have already shown that who started the altercation, regardless of their reasons, or actions, IS IRRELEVANT in this particular case.

I shall refresh your memory:

You are only continuing your foolishness because you don't have the capacity to be honest!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DZAG Wright

I guess this is an attempt at Ad hom attacks....

Nope! Not at all! That, my friend, was a direct, and truly heartfelt, response to your laughable attempt to show your credibility.

I must be on the righteous path!

Yeah, buddy...

You "crack me up". Thanks!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by DZAG Wright

A man, unless he's old or crippled, should be able to handle himself against one other person with out a gun. It's pure cowardice that in a 1 on 1, a man has to shoot another when that other hasn't brandished a weapon.

So...you are saying that a man can't kill another without a gun? And HOW did Z know that M didn't have a weapon of sorts hidden away on him to kill Z? Was Z supposed to use his mind power to determine so? I guess Z could have kindly asked T if he had a weapon when he was being attacked. I mean really, is that something you would do?

The body is capable of producing enough power in a single blow that, if delivered to the precise spot, it could kill a person. T could have also choked Z to death. But hey, it sounds like you are certain that that wouldn't have happened. Maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think so???

If I were being attacked and didn't know if I were going to get killed, if I had a weapon, I most certainly would have used it.

reply to post by BenReclused

I reckon that's because of the LEGAL presumption of INNOCENCE, until one's guilt has been demonstrated, in a criminal court of law, beyond all REASONABLE doubt.

What part of "presumption" do you not understand?

reply to post by BenReclused

George Zimmerman has not been charged with assault, so your entire argument is nothing more than a "straw man". Furthermore, I have already shown that who started the altercation, regardless of their reasons, or actions, IS IRRELEVANT.

Did I say Zimmerman was charged with assault? It was an attempt to clarify some fine legal distinctions that you are unwilling to see, just as you refuse to see that the Stand Your Ground Law explicitly does not apply to this case.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

What does your opinion have to do with the question I posed to another poster?

I reckon that you do, indeed, have a point, so I shall answer your question directly:

So George Zimmerman didn't show any ignorance?

Compared to the ignorance you have shown, George seems to be RELATIVELY intelligent.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

What does your opinion have to do with the question I posed to another poster?

I reckon that you do, indeed, have a point, so I shall answer your question directly:

So George Zimmerman didn't show any ignorance?

Compared to the ignorance you have shown, George seems to be RELATIVELY intelligent.

See ya,
Milt

Nice deflections, can't answer the question I guess....

Your take on my intelligence means as much to me as.................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... ..........how many horses it takes to change a light bulb! Just as relevant...

Many here have no idea what a thug is, hence they call a child who got in petty troubles at school and took a picture shooting the bird a thug.

If Trayvon was a thug, he would have walked up to George's car and pulled his ass out! Though on top of that if TM was a thug he would have had his own gun.

George killed a kid, and is so soft, that kid seemed like a thug too him. Truth.com

reply to post by DJW001

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Maslo

 

Because someone who justifiably kills someone in self-defense is innocent by all criterions. By all we know, it is possible that Zimmerman is innocent, nor was he proclaimed guilty yet. And I am not making a claim that he is innocent, it is you who is making a claim that he cannot be reasonably called innocent. Which he can be.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

In your opinion, was Trevor Martin using deadly force?

I noticed that you didn't cite Florida law statutes this time. Is that because you finally realized that they DO NOT support your foolish argument?

See ya,
Milt